Netroots Strategize Holding on to Power Once Gained

Chris Bowers of OpenLeft pens a post on the legislative reforms and statutory changes that would contribute to the creation of a more progressive society:

...I am referring to those key areas of legislation and Democratic Party behavior that have the potential to build progressivism itself. As Matt as discussed in recent length pieces such as Emergence Politics and Rush Limbaugh, and The Broken Market for Democratic Primaries, what progressives need are the creation and institutionalization of "positive feedback loops" that will make America a more progressive place, and thus make all other progressive policy more likely to be enacted...

* The Employee Free Choice Act...
* Clean Election Laws...
* Reversing Corporate Media Consolidation...
* Progressive Immigration Reform...
* Colonial Reform... [full voting rights for districts and territories -- the Editor]
* Re-locating government spending...
* Voting Reform...

As a conservative, this ought to scare you. I don't know of anyone on the right putting together a corresponding agenda: the reforms that conservatives support for their own sake, which would simultaneously reinforce a conservative direction for government.

Of these reforms, which ones do Democrats back because they're the right thing to do, and which do they support because they promise to cement the progressive hold on power? Does it call into question the legitimacy of a political movement to taint their agenda for the betterment of the human condition, by associating it with tightening the grip on the levers of power?

As a conservative, I think it's good to expand the ownership society. If I point out that expanding the ability of workers to invest for their retirement, also creates more pressure for government policies that promote business generally, is it a 'conflict of interest?'

What other policies would make it onto the corresponding list for free-market advocates?

• School choice: Allows kids trapped in bad schools -- often the poor -- to get a superior education, while simultaneously weakening teachers' unions.
• Contracting out of government services: If the government used more private contractors to deliver services, it would weaken government unions while also saving taxpayer money.
• Restraining federal spending increases to some combination of inflation & population. (Which would prevent the federal government from doing something new, without simultaneously giving up something it currently does).
  

What else would make the list?

See also Riehl World View